Prevailing Parties Get Them, With No Frivolity Requirement Necessary, But In Pro Per Litigant Dodged Appeal Sanctions.
Koresko v. De La Rosa, Case No. F064375 (5th Dist. Nov. 7, 2012) (unpublished) reinforces the fact that a prevailing party in routine civil litigation does receive routine costs under Code of Civil Procedure section 1032(b). In fact, the court has no discretion to deny costs to such a prevailing party. (Nelson v. Anderson, 72 Cal.App.4th 111, 129 (1999).) Losing party argued the other side’s counsel defended the action in bad faith and increased costs. However, counsel’s litigation tactics are irrelevant to routine costs entitlement. Loser failed to file a motion to tax costs, such that any objections also were waived. (Santos v. Civil Service Bd., 193 Cal.App.3d 1442, 1447 (1987).)
Respondent sought sanctions for a frivolous appeal against an in pro per appellant. The appellate court agreed that the appeal was frivolous, but denied imposing sanctions on an in pro per litigant who was not a “persistent litigant.” (Kabbe v. Miller, 226 Cal.App.3d 93, 98 (1990).)